Re: Linux Journal Editors Choice Awards

Looks like we got an honourable mention *sigh*:

Server Appliance: SnapGear for Lite/Lite+ SOHO Firewall/VPN Client
Honorable Mention: Sun Microsystems for Cobalt Qube
Security Tool: GPG
Web Server: IBM for xSeries
Honorable Mention: Sun Microsystems for Cobalt RaQ XRT
Enterprise Application Server: Zope
Technical Workstation: HP for x4000
Web Client (Tie): Mozilla and Galeon
Honorable Mention: Konqueror
Graphics Application: The GIMP
Consumer Software: KDE 3.0
Communication Tool: Ximian for Evolution
Development Tool: Emacs
Honorable Mentions: Borland for Kylix, and Kdevelop
Database: MySQL Honorable Mention: PostgresSQL
Backup Software: Sistina Software for Logical Volume Manager
Office Application: Sun Microsystems for OpenOffice 1.0
Mobile Device: Sharp for Zaurus
Training and Certification Program: Linux Professional Institute
Game: Sunspire Studios for TuxRacer
Honorable Mention: Pysol
Technical Book: Linux Device Drivers 2nd Edition by Alessandro Rubini and
Jonathan Corbet (O'Reilly & Associates)
Non-Technical Book: The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a
Connected World by Lawrence Lessig (Random House)
Web Site: Google
Product of the Year: Sharp for Zaurus

http://www.linuxjournal.com/edchoice/

Chris

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

> Database: MySQL Honorable Mention: PostgresSQL

Nothing wrong with that. From your list it seemed that in the categories
where there were competing open source and open source/commercial backed
software then the latter seemed to win over.

This makes sense if their judging criteria included things like
'commercial support contracts', 'service level agreements', 'warranties',
etc.

Gavin

> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
> > Database: MySQL Honorable Mention: PostgresSQL
>
> Nothing wrong with that. From your list it seemed that in the categories
> where there were competing open source and open source/commercial backed
> software then the latter seemed to win over.
>
> This makes sense if their judging criteria included things like
> 'commercial support contracts', 'service level agreements', 'warranties',
> etc.

I think the whole thing's pretty biased anyway. I mean the open source
database market now includes SapDB for crying out loud - how can MySQL (and
even postgres really) compete with that? And what about Firebird? I think
the nominations were put forward by a bunch of people who've only ever heard
of MySQL and PostgreSQL...

(Not that I'd switch to SapDB ;) )

Chris

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >
> > > Database: MySQL Honorable Mention: PostgresSQL
> >
> > Nothing wrong with that. From your list it seemed that in the categories
> > where there were competing open source and open source/commercial backed
> > software then the latter seemed to win over.
> >
> > This makes sense if their judging criteria included things like
> > 'commercial support contracts', 'service level agreements', 'warranties',
> > etc.
>
> I think the whole thing's pretty biased anyway. I mean the open source
> database market now includes SapDB for crying out loud - how can MySQL (and
> even postgres really) compete with that? And what about Firebird? I think
> the nominations were put forward by a bunch of people who've only ever heard
> of MySQL and PostgreSQL...
>
> (Not that I'd switch to SapDB ;) )

No question there is bias. 50% of the awards racket is just to generate
traffic of people who want to see who you picked. Red Hat DB won for
"Productivity Application" last year at LinuxWorld. I think they
just applied for everything.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

> database market now includes SapDB for crying out loud - how can MySQL (and
> even postgres really) compete with that? And what about Firebird? I think

And berkeley db. *Easily* the most widely used open source database and
the most profitable. :)

Gavin

* Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> [2002-09-03 10:17 +0800]:
> > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >
> > > Database: MySQL Honorable Mention: PostgresSQL
> >
> > Nothing wrong with that. From your list it seemed that in the categories
> > where there were competing open source and open source/commercial backed
> > software then the latter seemed to win over.
> >
> > This makes sense if their judging criteria included things like
> > 'commercial support contracts', 'service level agreements', 'warranties',
> > etc.
>
> I think the whole thing's pretty biased anyway. I mean the open source
> database market now includes SapDB for crying out loud - how can MySQL (and
> even postgres really) compete with that?

PostgreSQL code and build process is maintainable. Besides, I don't
think that PostgreSQL is no match for SAPdb, as PostgreSQL will have a
native win32 port, replication, schemas and prepared statements in the
forseeable future. What else is missing? Cross-database queries? I
suspect that at the current pace, PostgreSQL will match SAPdb's features
reasonably soon.

Btw. SAPdb has a win32 port, but still doesn't run on most Unixen (not
even on FreeBSD), which brings me back the the "maintainable code and
build process" point ;-)

> And what about Firebird?

You can get commercial support for it, too. Just as for PostgreSQL and
SAPdb.

-- Gerhard

Actually, Linux Journal (and their editors) are fans of PostgreSQL.

This year, MySQL may actually have clued in to transactions and a few
other big database features. I don't know that they actually *have*
these features polished up, but LJ is giving them credit for trying...

- Thomas

Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> Actually, Linux Journal (and their editors) are fans of PostgreSQL.
>
> This year, MySQL may actually have clued in to transactions and a few
> other big database features. I don't know that they actually *have*
> these features polished up, but LJ is giving them credit for trying...

Yea, but that assume we are sitting here doing nothing. We are
advancing at light speed compared to the other open source databases. I
don't think anyone disputes that.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

> Actually, Linux Journal (and their editors) are fans of PostgreSQL.
>
> This year, MySQL may actually have clued in to transactions and a few
> other big database features. I don't know that they actually *have*
> these features polished up, but LJ is giving them credit for trying...

It still disturbs me that you have to use a non-standard table type to
support transactions, plus the hijinks that will occur when you attempt to
perform a transaction that involves changes to transactional and
non-transactional tables...

"If you do a ROLLBACK when you have updated a non-transactional table you
will get an error (ER_WARNING_NOT_COMPLETE_ROLLBACK) as a warning. All
transactional safe tables will be restored but any non-transactional table
will not change."

Chris

Le Mardi 3 Septembre 2002 04:28, Gerhard Häring a écrit :
> PostgreSQL will have a
> native win32 port,

Just out of interest, what is the advancement of the Windows port.
Best regards, Jean-Michel